' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Both these petitions, arising out of F.I.R. No,105, dated 21-6- 1996 of Police Station Renala Khurd, shall be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Safdar Jameel and Muhammad Riaz being co-accused, along with acquitted co-accused, were sentenced, to death under section 302(b)/ 34, P.P.C. By learned Special Judge, Okara on 27-11-1999.
The Murder Reference succeeded and the appeals of the present petitioners failed before a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court through its judgment, dated 4-9-2002. Hence these petitions.
3. It may be stated at the very outset that both the petitions are time-barred by an alarming delay of 215 days. Though it is difficult to ignore such a pronounced delay, yet we would consider this limitation after dilating upon the merits of the case.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 21-6-1996 Sardar Muhammad, complainant along with Muhammad Rafique and Ghulam Nabi were coming back to Renala Khurd from Darbar Muhammad Ghous in Car No,FDH-134. When they reached near Army Remount Depot at about 4- 00 p.m., they saw a Suzuki Car No,LOK-9125 parked on the spot, driven by Muhammad Siddique. On the right side of the road another Toyota Corolla Car No,LOJ-6380 was also parked. Safdar Jameel armed with .30 bore pistol, Muhammad Riaz armed with rifle of .222 bore and the remaining acquitted co-accused also differently armed alighted from Toyota Corolla, pulled out Muhammad Siddique and grappled with him. Rafique and Rashid held the victim by his collar and took out Rs,1,500 from his pocket. When they tried to snatch the keys of the car from Muhammad Siddique, the latter showed resistance, upon which Safdar Jameel, instigated by Riaz, fired five consecutive shots from his .30 bore pistol hitting Muhammad Siddique on different parts of the body. Riaz also fired four shots with his .222 bore rifle similarly hitting Muhammad Siddique deceased. Safdar Jameel and Rashid boarded into Muhammad Siddique's car while Riaz and Rafiq boarded into Toyota Corolla along with their weapons and sped away towards Satghra.
5. They were apprehended along with cars from different places and after completion of investigation, indicted to stand trial before the Special Court.
6. It is a matter of record that the prosecution relied upon the ocular testimony of two witnesses while the 3rd one was abandoned as unnecessary. So far as their presence on the spot and the details of occurrence are concerned, they remained consistent and their veracity could not be shattered in the cross-examination. There is no enmity whatsoever between the complainant and the eye-witness, on the one hand, and accused on the other. They were however, already known to each other and hence there can be no reason at all for false implication.
7. All the four culprits, in general and the two petitioners in particular, were arrested along with cars in hot pursuit within the limits of two different police stations. On the same day Safdar Jameel and Rashid Maseh were arrested by Riaz Hussain A.S.-I. (P.W.12) at 5-50 p.m. i,e, more or less two hours after the occurrence within the limits of Thana Gogera. Riaz and Rafique, along with car of the deceased that was displaying a forged and fake registration plate of STD-3288 instead of 6380, were arrested by Fateh Muhammad, S.-I. (P.W.14) at 8-15 p.m. Within the limits of Thana Noor Shah.
Due to recovery of illicit arms, cases were registered against them under the relevant provisions of Arms Ordinance. Such apprehensions along with cars involved were made subsequent to the registration of F.I.R. Against them concerning robbery and murder. It provides a strong circumstantial evidence not at all rebutted.
8. Crime-empties of .30 bore attributed to Safdar Jameel and those of assault rifle attributed to Riaz, were recovered from the spot that matched with the respective weapons of offence recovered from them.
' The medical report also substantiated the ocular testimony. The prosecution, in the circumstances, has sufficiently proved its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Such verdict is given concurrently by the two Courts, which is perfectly in accord with the record and hence, we are not persuaded at all to interfere therewith.
9. Mr. Naeem-ul-Hassan Sherazi and Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioners raised the first objection that the accused having been arrested in different police stations, were falsely involved in the present case by the police and hence such arrest or apprehension did not constitute a valid piece of evidence. We might have agreed to this notion though not supported from record, had there been any enmity between the eye-witnesses and the accused. There is no motive at all for false implication.
10. Another objection was that the spent bullet, recovered from injury No,9 of the deceased as per post-mortem examination, was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of comparison. May be it is correct but this slight omission cannot brush aside the major recoveries from the spot that matched with the crime weapons.
11. Another objection regarding the non-conduct of identification parade does not hold any ground because the accused having already been known to the complainant party and their names having been mentioned in the F.I.R., there was no occasion at all to conduct identification parade. It is further alleged that the occurrence took place on 21st of June, while the empties, recovered from the spot, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory after lapse of six days. This also does not adversely affect the case of the prosecution supported by the ocular testimony as well as strong pieces of circumstantial evidence. Moreover, it could not be proved either through evidence or through cross-examination that the empties had been tampered with.
12. The next contention of the learned counsel was that throughout a rifle of .222 bore is attributed to Muhammad Riaz but the weapon recovered from him was a kalashnikov and further that how the empties of .222 bore rifle could match with a caliber of 7.62. The fact of the matter is that a rifle of .222 bore bears great similarity with a kalashnikov and hence by appearance, a layman genuinely gets confused about the exact caliber. The objection is not only frivolous but also tells of the investigation which did not lead to any padding in this behalf which was otherwise possible.
13. The last objection was to the effect that the Toyota Corolla Car, mentioned in the F.I.R., was never recovered from the culprits. This is no occasion at all to apprehend doubts for the simple reason that the criminals in such circumstances do not retain with them the vehicles in which they happen to have committed a crime.
14. As the case is squarely proved against both the petitioners, as we do not see mitigating circumstances either, and as, the petitioners have no case on merit at all, we are not inclined to condone the delay of 215 days for which the grounds of condonation are also weak and frivolous.
15. Consequently, leave to appeal is hereby refused on merit as well as on limitation. Both the petitions are dismissed.